2 Using these criteria, the Forest Service is planning to make available for leasing an average of one-third of the wilderness acreage in Colorado. This degree of leasing, under such lax criteria, may be legally possible under the original Wilderness Act. But nobody anticipated any Administration would go to this extreme. Third, developing our wilderness areas is not necessary to meet our national energy needs. Barely one-percent of the contiguous United States (the part of the country affected by this bill) is wilderness. In setting aside wilderness areas Congress has always paid particular attention to the oil and gas potential of the lands. For example, I and the others who wrote the 1980 Colorado Wilderness bill asked the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Association and other industry groups to tell us of every instance in which a company had plans to explore for oil and gas in an area being considered for wilderness designation -- and we then left all those areas out of the wilderness boundaries. Although their scrutiny has not been as rigorous, the executive agencies have also paid particular attention to the oil and gas potential of lands when designating them for wilderness study. Enough other Federal lands therefore are available for leasing to satisfy our energy needs. In fact, more than 80 percent of all Federal oil and gas leases expire without any drilling ever being undertaken. It would be preposterous to begin drilling in wilderness areas when so much of the non-wilderness land is not being developed. Fourth, the protection of the wilderness areas is too important to leave to administrative discretion. Unless prohibited by Congress, leases in wilderness areas would be valid even if they are issued by mistake of the agencies. And we have seen examples of this happening. Leases have been issued by agency oversight in wilderness areas in Colorado, New Mexico, and South Carolina, when official agency policy has been to deny leases in wilderness areas. Decisions on leasing wilderness areas involve both the Fifth, the will of Congress on this issue is clear. The House passed the bill by a vote of 340 to 56. Over half the members of the Senate have cosponsored Senator Jackson's bill. This Congressional consensus should not be frustrated. I urge the Committee to facilitate a Senate vote on this bill, So we can resolve this issue once and for all. ### Chairman McClure and Members of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. As Governor of the State of Colorado, I offer this statement in support of S. 2801, a bill to protect this nation's wilderness areas from oil and gas leasing and development. We in Colorado are blessed with many wild areas which have been set aside as designated wilderness. These areas offer recreation, watershed and air protection, and wildlife habitat as well as jobs for many Coloradans. - Today, they face the immediate threat of oil and gas leasing. Nine of our Colorado wilderness areas have pending lease applications and every wilderness area in our state that. has been reviewed by the Forest Service is recommended for varying degrees of leasing. The Weminuche wilderness, our largest and one of the most spectacular of wilderness is recommended. to Even the Mt. Evans Wilderness, the closest wilderness area Denver whose peak is most prominent on our city's skyline and a frequent destination of Denverites and visitors alike, is not spared. Two weeks ago, the Forest Service recommended more than 75 percent of this area for leasing. In 1964, when I testified on the original wilderness bill, I stated, "It would be a Phyrric victory to pass legislation without an immediate cutoff of activities in these areas which are inconsistent with wilderness designation." S. 2801 provides Congress with the opportunity to protect these areas from the imminent threat of which I spoke 18 years ago. S. 2801 is a reasonable bill. While it withdraws wilderness areas from the leasing program, it also instructs the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to continue with exploration and inventory efforts. This will insure that, in a time of national crisis, we know that minerals lie in wilderness arear and, if need be, Congress can open an area to development. I have heard discussions of adding a so-called "national release provision" to S. 2801. During the 1980 Colorado Wilderness bill hearings, we had the opportunity to debate this issue. We settled on a form of release most compatible to the needs of Colorado. I would urge you not to add a national release provision. It removes from each state the ability to do what it thinks best for its wilderness lands. " I would like to close the appeal for speedy passage of S. 2801 with a quote from a recent letter that Senator Bill Armstrong sent to a constituent. He said, to open wilderness areas now for exploration would be a breach of faith with the future." I, as Senator Armstrong does, want future Coloradans and all Americans to find these areas in the same undisturbed and wild state as they now exist. America developed the idea of a wilderness heritage for the world. Thank you. Senator WALLOP. Senator Warner? Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of this bill, and I believe firmly in the basic goals. However, I will keep an open mind. If there is a means to strengthen this legislation, I would be happy to consider it. I will forgo any comments in the hopes we can get on with the hearing. Senator WALLOP. Senator Murkowski? STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, am looking forward to hearing the witnesses. I think that we have had some experience in Alaska with wilderness since a lot of it has been created up there. However, my concern, and I will be looking forward to the testimony of the witnesses, is the realities that we want to achieve in this country-higher degree of energy independence; we want to protect our wilderness. It is indeed too bad that we could not have done a resource inventory a generation ago and established those areas that have the prospect for development and set aside those others that can better be assets in a wilderness area, but we haven't been able to do that. The question is, How can we best create that now? And perhaps the testimony that is going to come before your committee on this particular bill will indicate that this is the best bill, and perhaps it will indicate that changes should be made to better relate to the reality of the strategic mineral concerns, energy independence achievement, and I guess that is what this is all about, Mr. Chairman, and I would look forward to the witnesses making their presentations. Senator WALLOP. Thank you very much, Senator, and we appreciate the attention and indulgence of the Senators in keeping within the time. We have a substantial witness list, and I will hold them to the 5 minutes so that questions can be asked. First is the Honorable John Crowell, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Mr. Ray Housley, Deputy Chief of the national forest system, and perhaps the Secretary may want to introduce your technical witnesses if they will be needed so the committee is aware of who you have with you. Mr. CROWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am accompanied by a number of gentlemen from the Department of the Interior, from the Geological Survey, and from the Minerals Management Service who could respond to technical questions if the committee feels that they have any of that nature to address to the administration at this hearing. STATEMENT OF JOHN B. CROWELL, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND M. HOUSLEY, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM Mr. CROWELL. We do appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the issue of mineral leasing in wilderness, and in areas being considered for wilderness, and to present our views about S. 2801, the Wilderness Protection Act of 1982, and related matters. The Wilderness Act of 1964 provides for mineral leasing in wilderness areas through December 31, 1983, subject to reasonable regulations. The act also provides that leases issued shall contain stipulations to protect the wilderness character of the land consistent with the purpose for which the lease is issued. As it stands now, there is no legal basis for refusing to consider issuing a lease if reasonable stipulations to safeguard the wilderness character of the land are part of the lease. Reasonable stipulations are those which permit development for the lease purpose to proceed on the area leased without imposing prohibitive physical or economic constraints. Although leasing is a discretionary act, the Wilderness Act clearly contemplated that leases would be issued and that the areas subject to lease would be explored, and if a discovery occurred, would be developed. The Forest Service currently has more than 1,100 lease applications pending for portions of wilderness areas. A target for processing all lease applications in wilderness by October 1, 1983, has been set in order to provide the Bureau of Land Management at least 3 months' leadtime to act on Forest Service recommendations prior to the January 1, 1984, withdrawal from leasing as stipulated in the Wilderness Act. There is an obligation to consider and process applications in accordance with the law as it exists today. The administration, of course, is aware of the public concern and controversy related to the potential issuance of oil, gas, mineral, and geothermal leases in wilderness. The possible impacts that exploration and development may have on the physical characteristics and esthetic attributes of designated and proposed wildernesses are recognized. The administration is willing to accept legislation closing mineral leasing prior to the January 1, 1984, date prescribed by the Wilderness Act of 1964. However, the administration believes the legislation should also attempt to resolve some other pending policy matters relating to wilderness designations, wilderness area recommendations, and studies of roadless areas. A substantial area of Federal land would be affected by this legislation and is involved in these pending policy matters. The first such policy matter is the future of those unroaded lands that were considered in the Forest Service's roadless areas review and evaluation processes, RARE I and RARE II, and which were not recommended for wilderness designation. For more than 10 years, most of the 62 million acres considered in the RARE process, almost one-third of the National Forest System, have remained in more or less uncertain status. A few months after the RARE II recommendations were announced, the State of California brought suit alleging the inadequacy of the RARE II Environmental Impact Statement with respect to some but not all of the California National Forest roadless areas which had not been recommended for wilderness designations. The U.S. District Court decided that the Environmental Impact Statement was indeed insufficient. The decision was subsequently appealed and argued to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which has had the case under advisement since last September. If the lower court's decision is affirmed, it will mean that the 36 million acres of roadless areas which were not recommended for wilderness designation by RARE II may be subject to a similar lawsuit or lawsuits. The consequences would be that none of the lands made subject to such litigation could be managed for any purpose without a new or supplemental Environmental Impact Statement being prepared. This would take considerable time, would require the efforts of a good many Forest Service people who would be diverted from performing more productive work, would be expensive, and in all likelihood would result in the very same recommendations for nonwilderness designation. In the meantime, on some national forests, the timber sale program would be substantially reduced. Much oil and gas and mineral exploration would be at a standstill. The Treasury would lose receipts, and the economy would be without needed raw materials. All of these possibly disruptive consequences could be avoided by the simple expedient of a statutory enactment which would declare the RARE II Environmental Impact Statement to be legally sufficient and which would prohibit court review of that issue. The administration recommends that such a provision be made a part of S. 2801. Similarly, it would be appropriate to use this bill as a vehicle for providing that 36 million roadless acres which were not recommended for wilderness by RARE II not be subject to being studied again by the Forest Service at some future time for possible inclusion in the wilderness system. The Congress at some time must decide on how large the wilderness portion of the National Forest System is to be. Already 25 million acres of the 191 million acre system are formally designated as wilderness. Additionally, 6.9 million acres recommended for wilderness by RARE II have not been acted upon by Congress. Still further, there are 4.2 million acres in RARE II further planning status-excuse me. There are 4.2 million acres in congressionally mandated study status, and another 8.1 million acres in RARE II further planning status. If wilderness areas are to be permanently foreclosed from oil, gas, and mineral exploration and development, and from other forms of multiple use, including timber harvesting, by this bill, it is not reasonable to assume that wilderness designations from the national forest system, with all of the publicly owned wealth it represents, should be without ultimate limits. It is, therefore, the administration's recommendation that S. 2801 be amended to provide for release from having to be studied again, either permanently or at least until the year 2000, of the lands not recommended for wilderness by RARE II or by further |